It's a pretty long one, but basically he says that the constitution is to blame for the shutdown and advocates for the removal of the current political system in the US and get in parlamentarism instead. There are currently two houses that are put equal, and basically it makes it rather difficult for the voters to know exactly who to blame for things going to shit.

Quote:

In 2010 the economy was garbage, so, as political science would predict, the American people punished the party in power, the Democrats.

But the diffusion of power throughout the political system made it impossible to know for sure who was responsible for the state of the economy. Maybe it was the fault of Susan Collins and other moderate senators who used filibuster threats to cut the stimulus. Maybe it was the fault of the rest of the Republican caucus for imposing a 60-vote threshold for stimulus and not cooperating. Maybe it was the Bush-appointed Federal Open Market Committee's fault for not loosening rates in 2007 and 2008. Maybe it was all Obama's fault for not pushing for more stimulus, and Democrats in Congress would have been happy to pass it.

In most other countries the government needs the backing of the parliment to actually be appointed. Sure, both Italy and Germany have presidents, but the power is with the Prime Minister who runs a government based on which party got how many seats. In terms it's quite easy to see who to blame; it's the guys in power, no matter what. It's not a question of whether it's the President/Prime Minister or the people in the parliment. A survey showed that only 10% of the US population have faith in the congress(couldn't find the source, sorry), and I doubt things will improve over this stalemate.

So is it time where they should actually have a voting on whether or not to rethink the entire political system and adopt parlamentarism with only one house?"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."

Looking at the situation from a distance, it seems to me that the Republican Party (not to mention the odious tea party) are to blame. Obama's proposed healthcare system sounds eminently sensible, to me at least. The system in the US seems to work quite well, by and large. Current events notwithstanding, so I don't think it needs a drastic overhaul as such. We have, after all, a similar system here in the uk, with both a lower and upper house. Only here, it's the upper houses job to keep the lower house in check. Does the senate have no say in the shutdown whatsoever?

Sprite, first the people in Congress are still getting paid and they are also exempt from the new Heath care legislation "Obamacare". I will agree that the tea party are off base but the left wing of the democrats are just as much to blame, two parties, different cheeks on the same ass, fleck the whole lot of them, none of them has any of us as their priority, only their self serving asses.

No, congress people need to stop the bull shit, and look out for the people who voted them in. I'm tired of hearing democrat versus republican, tea party member versus everyone else. How 'bout, working together to bring about a better community. None have risen to the task, and in the current system, none will. Do we get rid of it? No. You wanna get rid of something, scrap this constant overlaying of blame, and put some minds to work.

How?

1. Fuck all lobbyists. You want to have a say, you do it as you tell your constituents. Right in, and provide some reason for the change you want or the backing you give. No luncheons, no getaways, no funding past that which comes strictly from your constituents (that is, without any incorporation behind it). You, the voter get counted in vote and donation.

2. If you totally disenfranchise yourself from the stance you took once voted in, you're out. If enough write ins can constructively note your hypocritical stances, then fuck you.

3. If you cannot, without the backing of statutory loopholes and spin selling hearsay argue against the former, then fuck you. You're out.

Cut the shit, read what's in front of you, and don't believe the hype. But we do, without any proof, without any backing, and with much lobbying behind the bullshit. We are unfortunately prone to hype.

Joined: 10/21/2010Posts: 3,402Location: The wilder parts. , United States

sprite wrote:

btw, does anyone know if Congress is still getting paid while this is going on? just curious.

Yes they are. A few of them are grandstanding by not taking it, but their pay continues even when the government is shut down.

I doubt that there would be that much improvement under a parliamentary system. The members of parliament would be owned by corporations just like members of congress are. It's not our institutions that are at fault, it's the people running them. If we're going to elect sell outs to govern us, we shouldn't complain when they vote the bidding of the people who pay them off.

Right now, if we had a parliament, John Boehner would be prime minister. That wouldn't be an improvement over his being speaker of the house. The voters of the USA elected these people. Why would they elect a better parliament than congress?

Sprite, first the people in Congress are still getting paid and they are also exempt from the new Heath care legislation "Obamacare". I will agree that the tea party are off base but the left wing of the democrats are just as much to blame, two parties, different cheeks on the same ass, fleck the whole lot of them, none of them has any of us as their priority, only their self serving asses.

I used to feel that way, and still feel Obama is mostly an empty suit with a briefcase full of hope and change platitudes, and that most politicians regardless of affiliation are very self-serving. But I can no longer see the Republicans' obstructionist antics here as anything other than what it is. There is no populist motive, there is no altruistic mission, there is no 'call for sanity'. There is only a party, whose constituents are overwhelming white, and a movement (tea party) whose proponents are overwhelmingly upper and middle class white, who are doing everything they can to stop progress as defined by our ever-evolving population and the legislation that it's representatives pass and mandate. This doesn't mean Republican = racist, but there's no denying the cynical and sordid history within party leadership which has now resulted in embarrassingly-low percentages of minorities among their ranks.

The Republicans are kicking and screaming, mostly out of fear. Sad thing is, a good chunk of that party recognizes many of the basic realities that the right-wing of the party is stubbornly pretending don't exist.

Therefore, we have a shutdown and a possible default looming. Stubbornness and fear.

Are there problems on the liberal/democrat side? Absolutely. Some of them are big. But this situation is nothing but a last stand by a group that sees their 'moral majority' circling the drain. Progress always wins in the end. Conservatives may win battles, but they never win the war. Not that they won't fight, and that fight is most of what these last five years of Obama's presidency have been about for them.

Otherwise, Ruthie said it best. Changing the legislative setup does nothing but shuffle the deck. The cards remain the same either way.

Since the birth of democracy, over 2500yrs ago, people have searched for the ideal system of government. Does it exist? I don't know, far greater brains than mine have studied this. The problem in the USA is money, the exhorbitant cost of being elected takes it out of the reach of the ordinary person. The bankrolling by companies and individuals is an anathema to democracy. If a member has been elected to either House they should be there to represent the views of the electorate, not just business. The USA has complete separation of powers within a constitutional democracy, with defined lines between Federal and State powers. Personally, I think this the closest thing to the ideal system. Just make sure that,as a great statesman once said, it is "by the people for the people".

The republicans blame the shutdown on the democrats. The democrats blame it on the republicans. They are both right. Both parties WANT the shutdown so they can blame it on the other. Neither party care about anything but their own power. Whether you vote for a democrat or a republican you are voting to get fucked.

The republicans blame the shutdown on the democrats. The democrats blame it on the republicans. They are both right. Both parties WANT the shutdown so they can blame it on the other. Neither party care about anything but their own power. Whether you vote for a democrat or a republican you are voting to get fucked.

Well, that's actually not true. Only one party's been gunning for a shutdown since 2010. But my experience tells me those who believe "both sides are the same" are rarely reachable. Which is part of our national problem.

Well, that's actually not true. Only one party's been gunning for a shutdown since 2010. But my experience tells me those who believe "both sides are the same" are rarely reachable. Which is part of our national problem.

I think the people that are most unreachable are the ones that believe that one side is infallible while the other is wrong on all counts.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

No open minded truthful person can blame one party for the shut down. The roots go deep and are equally shared. If YOU continue to vote for your same congressional representative, both House & Senate, then YOU are as much to blame as they are.

It is high time to demand term limits! Maybe a state-by-state vote on a constitutional amendment could get term limits passed. Term limits will never pass the US House & Senate, but might pass through the state congresses. Once a two-thirds majority of the states pass it, it becomes the federal constitutional law. You could get involved by contacting your state representative.

I don't know about you, Buz, but I've been watching these last three-plus weeks. Only one party won't pass a clean CR. Only one party is threatening default over the funding of a passed, and currently implemented law.

Term limits may or may not work. I'd consider voting for them if they came around. I'd prefer federal rules that prohibited/prevented gerrymandering of districts.

I've been watching too Monocle and have seen that one party asks for a compromise to pass and the other party refuses. the blame is certainly equal on both sides. We may have reached a crisis in our nation's history where the 2 parties are at their worst when it comes to being uncompromising. I find both parties equally repugnant, cowardly, untruthful, incompetent, vile and poorly led.

In the last major election I worked as a volunteer for a Democrat running for US Congress. He was on the final ballot against the Republican, but the National Democrat Party would not send him financial support because he stood for term limits. This is the truth. Consequently he lost the election to a Tea Party Republican. Extra financing for advertising could have swung the close election in his favor. He actually won a lot of cross over moderate Republican votes, but not quite enough. That was my last straw with the National Democrats. So now I am officially not voting for either GOP or Democrats in the national level. Back to Libertarian I guess.

There are federal laws against gerrymandering but it is extremely difficult to prove in court. It is a term that came about from the earliest days of our Republic and is used by both parties in the states that they control. California is heavily gerrymandered for the Democrats, whereas, Texas is heavily gerrymandered for the Republicans. Any state with a disproportionate number of one party in control is gerrymandered for that party. Sometimes changing demographics can counter that.

I've been watching too Monocle and have seen that one party asks for a compromise to pass and the other party refuses. the blame is certainly equal on both sides. We may have reached a crisis in our nation's history where the 2 parties are at their worst when it comes to being uncompromising. I find both parties equally repugnant, cowardly, untruthful, incompetent, vile and poorly led.

Both sides have their faults, but I don't buy equal fault here for one second. "Compromise" is defined by one side as the dismantling of a law Congress passed, upheld by the supreme court as the price for _any_ governance at all. AND the price for paying the debts already incurred by the country. That is the definition of blackmail.

In the last major election I worked as a volunteer for a Democrat running for US Congress. He was on the final ballot against the Republican, but the National Democrat Party would not send him financial support because he stood for term limits.

Democratic Party.

Quote:

This is the truth. Consequently he lost the election to a Tea Party Republican. Extra financing for advertising could have swung the close election in his favor. He actually won a lot of cross over moderate Republican votes, but not quite enough. That was my last straw with the National Democrats. So now I am officially not voting for either GOP or Democrats in the national level. Back to Libertarian I guess.

It's a shame. I'm not privy to the tactical decisions of any party. Sounds like a Democratic mistake in this case. I hope the Libertarians give you the righteousness you seek.

Sprite, first the people in Congress are still getting paid and they are also exempt from the new Heath care legislation "Obamacare". I will agree that the tea party are off base but the left wing of the democrats are just as much to blame, two parties, different cheeks on the same ass, fleck the whole lot of them, none of them has any of us as their priority, only their self serving asses.

Actually 80% of the country is exempt. If you already have healthcare and don't lose it because you lose your job then nothing changes. You keep your old insurance. Same for virtually all government workers.

The only exception is members of congress and their staff who are required to leave the government scheme and buy healthcare on the exchanges. Which was a grandstanding measure put in there by a Republican who expected it to go during the conference stage but there was never a conference.

This would have meant the staffers lost their government subsidy on their health care which would have left many badly out of pocket. Staffers don't get paid very well compared to members of congress, most of whom are millionaires. So the administration decided that they get paid a bit extra in recognition of the fact that they have lost a valuable benefit.

Some Republicans have been trying to change this but the GOP staffers have been leaking stuff like crazy on the ones who proposed it. They are true self-servatives.

A big reason that the Republicans still have a majority in the house is that over the years many "Red" states have been "gerrymandered" into districts that have such a strong republican majority that a Republican cannot lose. States that have a majority of constituents who are not hard-core Tea-Partiers can still have a majority of representatives from that state be these uncompromising pseudo-conservatives.

Here's an article about "gerrymandering" for those who are new to the term:

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.